Carroll, A. B 2004, Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge, Academy of Management Executive, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 114-20.
This article looks into the subject of managing ethically in the global perspective. The author begins by identifying the limitations to understanding global business ethics. One of the challenges that are identified is insufficient knowledge in global business ethics. The global management environment is quite broad. It has two main stakeholders which are nation-states and organizations: Business and nonbusiness oriented organizations.
The paper focuses on the role of the two main stakeholders in shaping the ethical standards of management. The argument in the paper is built around nation-states and multinational organizations in determining the management ethics. Both state and multinational organizations were chosen because they all have a huge influence in the international management scene (Carroll, 2004).
The author provides different stakeholders that are found in the states as well as globalized firms. Multinational corporations have continued to increase in stature and influence. With most of them controlling large revenues, their significance in the devising of ethical standards of management has also blossomed. The author clarifies the different platforms on which ethical standards of managing arise. Ethical standards of management are often set at national level.
The author notes and discusses differences in nature and work of ethical standards in different countries and their effect in global management. The author establishes how managers of multinational companies conduct management practices amidst differing ethical standards in new business destinations. The author tries to bring out an understanding of the manner in which managers of multinationals combine ethical standards practiced in mother countries and those practiced in host countries. The author assesses several arguments by different scholars on the subject of business ethics in the globalized world. This gives a clear picture of the knowledge that exists, concerning the subject of ethical standards of global management.
According to the author, social and ethical practices in managing by all the stakeholders in global management can be done by following a clear model or framework. A pyramid of Global Corporate Social Responsibility is identified as one of the frameworks of understanding ethical standards of managing business at the global level. The author explains the essence of the four key components of the framework and how they play in shaping the global, ethical standards of management. The components are: philanthropic responsibility, legal responsibility, ethical responsibility, and economic responsibility.
All these have enormous contributions to the ethical code of global management. The author goes further to discuss ways in which different stakeholders in international management can be responsive to the components of responsibility elicited in the Global Pyramid of CSR. Several examples of how managers of multinational companies are doing this have been discussed. An explanation of the contribution of global, ethical standard for strategic – decision making is tackled in the paper. The author points to the need for more research to help in the development of swifter modes of understanding ethics in global management.
This research article helps in the understanding of the global perspective of management. The subject of ethical standards in global management is essential to scholars who seek to understand issues that affect international management. The paper gives useful insights into understanding business practices and ethical considerations as it applies to the globalized environment in which most multinationals operate. The author uses a clear language and articulates well between arguments in the paper making it easy to understand.
Carroll, A. B 2004, ‘Managing ethically with global stakeholders: A present and future challenge’, Academy of Management Executive, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 114-20.